Blog

Allegations that younger women sometimes marry older men for their money are nothing new. But with people living longer and the transfer of one trillion dollars from one generation to the next, it appears as if the concern about financial predators is more commonplace. In part, it’s because the Baby Boomer generation has considerable wealth, and while medical science has increased the average lifespan it has not made comparable progress in reducing the cognitive impairment associated with the aging process. More wealthy elderly people with heightened vulnerability are easier prey for the financial predator.

The title of this article is an excerpt from Justice LaForme’s dissent, in an Ontario’s Court of Appeal decision dealing with the multiple spouse conundrum in the context of Ontario’s Pensions Benefits Act. This is not an endorsement of bigamy. It is addressing a growing social phenomenon.

The Divisional Court decision in the Quinn v Carrigan case (Quinn), is useful for both lawyers and non-lawyers to determine the range of support that a court may award when a dependant is disinherited.

Suppose that prior to the death of your spouse the two of you signed an agreement where you both committed not to sue each other’s estate. Also imagine that you did not get legal advice before signing the agreement. Would a judge hold you to that agreement? It depends.

Lawrence Wilkes, a 62-year-old sophisticated businessman, proposed marriage to Mary. She was only 21 years old, developmentally handicapped and very unsophisticated. Lawrence took Mary to his lawyer where, without the benefit of independent legal advice or disclosure of Lawrence’s assets, she signed a prenuptial agreement. By so doing, Mary gave away her right to make any claims against Lawrence or his estate. When Lawrence died, Mary was left with nothing and she sued. Her lawyer said that the prenuptial agreement was “unconscionable”

In the LeVan case, Richard’s family’s business was worth $30,000,000. Prior to his marriage to Erika, Richard’s family insisted that they enter into a prenuptial agreement. The contract excluded Richard’s business interests and severely restricted Erika’s rights to support upon the dissolution of the marriage or upon Richard’s death. The court set aside the marriage contract and the LeVan case became the seminal case for the proposition that full and frank disclosure should be a foundation stone of every domestic contract.